Differences between revisions 32 and 61 (spanning 29 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 32 as of 2005-11-17 16:07:50 →
Size: 3854
Editor: amorvita
Comment:
← Revision 61 as of 2006-05-05 10:29:31 → ⇥
Size: 6188
Editor: amorvita
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 8: Line 8:
Line 10: Line 11:
'''Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. May make adolescents that share files organised criminals.'''
Line 11: Line 13:
In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out. Now these criminal penalties are back in 2 new European Commission proposals. Often these are referred to as IPRED 2. The official names are: In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out. These criminal penalties came back in 2005 in 2 new European Commission proposals. Following a European Court decision in an other case, they were retracted, [http://wiki.ffii.org/Com051123En for formal reasons.] In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced a new directive.]

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]

[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

== Main points ==

== Rejection ==

There are good grounds for rejection. The only valid ground for the directive is that non-harmonisation gives member states [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En a competitive advantage.] The Commission does not even try to make that case. See also [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty] and [http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051122.pdf FFII] If the directive does not meet the requirements mentioned below (scope and elements of a crime), the directive should surely be rejected.
Line 14: Line 26:
Proposal for a
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights
Line 18: Line 27:
Proposal for a
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION
to strengthen the criminal law framework to combat intellectual property offences		 == Scope ==
Line 22: Line 29:
== No Justification == Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too. In general, the directive should be limited to rights of which it is proven
that civil protection is not enough.
Line 24: Line 32:
The proposals lack proper justification, the justification given is just one A4 page long. There is no need for the proposals, piracy is already prohibited in European countries. In some cases, penalties go up more than a 100 times. There is no indication at all that this is needed. No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime
Line 26: Line 34:
TRIPS already lays down severe provisions on means of enforcing trade-related intellectual property
rights. These include the implementation of criminal procedures and criminal penalties. In no way the Commission makes clear these are not enough. 		== Elements of a crime ==
Line 29: Line 36:
In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). It is being implemented at the moment. Effects are not clear yet, it is unknown whether further measures are needed. Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:]
Line 31: Line 38:
== Neutrality of police investigation == "As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively:
Line 33: Line 40:
Right-holders can help the police to draw conclusions. There goes neutrality of police investigation. (framework art 4, see also the explanatory memorandum on this article)  - Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.)
Line 35: Line 42:
[http://www.ipred.org/en More]  - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit
Line 37: Line 44:
------------------------------------  - Potential to cause considerable damage

 - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"

Note these are the minimal elements. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements.
Line 40: Line 51:
COM(2005)276 final
Line 42: Line 52:
2005/0127(COD)

2005/0128(CNS)		 == == ==
Line 47: Line 55:
[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]

2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)


[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]
Line 62: Line 84:

[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]
Line 64: Line 89:
[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] [http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)
Line 67: Line 92:


[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]

------------------------

Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive 2

Makes violations of "intellectual property rights", such as patents, a crime. May make adolescents that share files organised criminals.

In 2004 the Council and European Parliament adopted an Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED). To make fast adoption possible (before 10 new members joined the EU), criminal penalties were taken out. These criminal penalties came back in 2005 in 2 new European Commission proposals. Following a European Court decision in an other case, they were retracted, [http://wiki.ffii.org/Com051123En for formal reasons.] In April 2006 the European Commission [http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/532&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en announced a new directive.]

Minister Donner (NL) [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En was not pleased.]

[http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st08/st08866.en06.pdf The new text] (Change "en" twice in the link for translations)

Main points

Rejection

There are good grounds for rejection. The only valid ground for the directive is that non-harmonisation gives member states [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredDonner060428En a competitive advantage.] The Commission does not even try to make that case. See also [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty] and [http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051122.pdf FFII] If the directive does not meet the requirements mentioned below (scope and elements of a crime), the directive should surely be rejected.

Scope

Patents have to be taken out. [http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII:] "It is in practice impossible to write and sell software products without certainty that your product does not violate one of the 65,000 software or business method patents granted by the European Patent Office." [http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En Others] protested criminalisation of patent infringement too. In general, the directive should be limited to rights of which it is proven that civil protection is not enough.

No criminalising of inciting and abetting beyond general rules that exist in some countries making it a crime to incite to a crime

Elements of a crime

Reto M. Hilty, Managing Director, Max Planck Institute for IP, Professor of Law [http://www.ipred.org/Hilty said:]

"As a matter of fact, a harmonisation of IP criminal statutes can be justified from the point of view of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality only in connection with actions by which the following elements of a crime are fulfilled cumulatively:

  • - Identity of the exploited object of protection (the good takes on characteristic elements of a protected product or label in a targeted and unmodified fashion – construction, assembly, etc.) - Commercial activity with an intention to earn a profit - Potential to cause considerable damage - Intent or contingent intent (dolus eventualis)"

Note these are the minimal elements. They are better defined more sharp to prevent accidents. The Commission proposal does not even meet the minimal elements.

==

[http://www.ipred.org/2005 the 2005 proposals]

2005 : COM(2005)276 final / 2005/0127(COD) / 2005/0128(CNS)

[http://www.ipred.org/Hilty Hilty:] 4 basic elements

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2GovLtrsEn FFII: Call on the 25 Governments to remove criminal sanctions in case of patent infringement]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/JuriHearing060131En Hearing 31st Jan. 2006]

[http://www.ffii.org/~ante/FFII-ipred051127.pdf FFII letter Nov 27th]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/IpredEp051122En European Parliament hearing 22 November 2005]

[http://www.ipred.org/nl NL: Gevangenisstraf voor octrooiinbreuk]

[http://wiki.ffii.org/Ipred2En FFII]

[http://plone.ffii.org/Members/coordinator/FFII%20UK%20IPRED2%20consultation.pdf/download FFIII-UK]

[http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ipred2/ipred2.en.html FSFE]

[http://tinyurl.com/9djqm EU docs]

[http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0276en01.pdf Commission proposal]

[http://www.aippi.org/reports/resolutions/Q169_E.pdf AIPPI paper]

[http://www.ipred.org/ipred1 IPRED 1] (2004)

[http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/RenderServlet?search=DocNumber&lg=en&nb_docs=25&domain=Legislation&coll=&in_force=NO&an_doc=2003&nu_doc=1383&type_doc=Regulation Customs regulation]

Interesting starting points:

How to use this site

Note: To prevent spammers from spamming the wiki, you need be logged in to edit pages. If you don't have an account yet, just go to "Login" and create an account.

A Wiki is a collaborative site, anyone can contribute and share:

  • Edit any page by pressing GetText(Edit) at the top or the bottom of the page

  • Create a link to another page with joined capitalized words (like WikiSandBox) or with ["quoted words in brackets"]

  • Search for page titles or text within pages using the search box at the top of any page

  • See HelpForBeginners to get you going, HelpContents for all help pages.

To learn more about what a WikiWikiWeb is, read about WhyWikiWorks and the WikiNature. Also, consult the WikiWikiWebFaq.

This wiki is powered by MoinMoin.

MainPage (last edited 2009-05-30 23:30:39 by localhost)